So, is the claim "the ultimate ontology as an inherently computational, self-organizing reality" true? We should not view this as a binary true/false question in the way "2+2=4" is true. It is a proposition about the nature of Being itself. Its "truth" is a measure of its **coherence**. - It is **logically coherent**, avoiding paradoxes of creation and dualism. - It is **evidentially coherent**, unifying a vast range of disparate physical and philosophical problems under a single, elegant explanatory principle. - It is **scientifically coherent**, remaining consistent with all known data while providing a clear, albeit challenging, roadmap for future investigation and potential falsification. The ultimate power of this framework is that it doesn't just state "this is what reality is." It says, "This is what reality could be, and here is how its computational nature might be revealed." It connects the what with the how we can know. The final conclusion is not a dogmatic assertion of truth, but a profound and well-supported invitation to explore a new, unified vision of a computational, self-organizing cosmos.